The Bologna Process on the Eve of Its 16th Anniversary Meeting

With a meeting in May to plan for the future, it’s worth taking a moment to note the successes and challenges of the Bologna Process. The Bologna Process was initiated in 1999 with 27 signatory nations, but it continues to enhance the higher education systems of Europe and Eurasia, albeit lopsidedly. The leaders from the 47 members of the Bologna Process will discuss topics as wide-ranging as “reform adoption, quality assurance and transparency, lifelong learning, mobility and internationalization…access, portability of scholarships and loans, student-centered learning, employability, common recognition of professional qualifications, doctoral training…” (Lazerson, 2015). These topics are certainly important to the larger discussion of education and to the continued development of the Bologna Process. However, with the focus still firmly on higher education, the Bologna Process fails to capitalize on the far-reaching effects that the process could produce.

The Bologna Process is part of a movement towards the creation of the European Higher Education Area through the adaptation of higher education degree structures to a three-cycle system: bachelors, masters, and doctoral degrees (Voegtle, et al. 2010). This process is intended to facilitate the translation and transfer between universities and across nations of degrees, students and instructors, as part of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) (Teelken & Wihlborg, 2010). But improved higher education institutions can only make so much progress if primary and secondary schools do not make conscious efforts to rise to the new standards.

While the Bologna Process does not include features dedicated to improving teacher training or policy, the requirements regarding degree structures have some implications for how teachers should be trained. Some structural changes have trickled down to the secondary level of education, but this has not been part of a greater, intentional decision-making process. “Although the Bologna agenda is often perceived as concerned with structural issues, its focus on quality has implications for curricula” (Bauer & Penzel, 2012, 1642). The ideals of Bologna in facilitating international connections and benchmarking have the potential to pressure governments and universities to improve their educational systems (Voegtle, 2010). With greater deliberative attention, increased pressure to reform and enhance teacher requirements would further the Bologna Process goals, though due to the structure of the Bologna Process, this may never occur. Almost half of Bologna countries have increased the length of teacher training requirements for primary and upper-secondary level teachers (Bauer & Penzel, 2012). This sounds like definite progress, and it is.

At the heart of the problems with the Bologna Process, and the hindrance to it impacting development is that it is a voluntary program. When nations commit, there can be a decrease in corruption and improvement in teacher training not only in higher education, but also in primary and secondary schools. But, given the voluntary basis for the pact, there are no means of forcing a negligent nation to make changes. The process is dependent entirely on nations feeling pressured or being independently committed to change to actually make reform. This is certainly enough for some nations, such as Georgia and Macedonia. Georgia has implemented standardized testing to limit teacher corruption, and passed laws improving equity in private tutoring access (Gabedava, 2013). Lativia has made efforts to shift to a student-centered teaching and learning approach (Kangro, 2005). But these are more exceptions than the rule, as there are nations that have largely failed to right issues of corruption and teacher development.

When examining the countries that have adopted these changes, it becomes apparent one of the most challenging issues facing Bologna success: the one-sidedness of the exchange. The Western European nations and higher education systems already had in place many of the Bologna requirements, while Eastern European and Eurasian nations struggle to catch up. A distinct “brain drain” effect exists in this exchange, with many students from less affluent nations participating as exchange students and then staying in their host nation. These students also often struggle when they reach their host university, as their secondary education has not prepared them for a more intensive higher education environment. This limits the gains that a country such as Belarus, which is attempting to join the Bologna Process this year (Preiherman, 2015), would experience from participating. Less likely to make the changes, or be able to afford to complete the reforms in a thorough and sustainable way, are often those nations that are more recent signatories of the Bologna Process, the Eastern European nations.

These nations sign on because of the perceived benefits of the exchange, such as an influx of international students and higher reputation for their universities. However, several nations also have reputations for corruption (again, mostly in Eastern Europe or Eurasia), and these nations struggle to reap the benefits, as their students fail to gain acceptance or success in the exchange, and the corruption institutions are not likely to receive international students (Bergan, 2009). In some cases, the desire to improve perception outweighs the need to make and implement reforms patiently and carefully. In Ukraine, the government pressured universities to increase research output in order to improve the country’s reputation, though professors did not receive higher salaries, resulting in fraudulent or falsified research (Shaw, 2013).

These issues that the Bologna Process face are not reasons to give up on the process. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Bologna Process has corresponded with the growing importance of the European Union and the Education for All movement, further connecting the different nations and cultures of Europe, and improving access for different economic classes and ethnic minorities (Crosier & Parveva, 2013). It has the continued ability to create bridges across cultures and nations, encouraging social capital and economic development, and preventing conflict between the participant nations. Because these nations agree to a set of reforms and ideals for higher education, greater quantitative and qualitative comparisons are possible, which could lead to greater accountability measures in dedicated nations and universities.

Works Cited

Bauer, J. & Penzel, M. (2012, 06 29). European teacher training reforms. Science Magazine, 336, 1642-1643.

Bergan, S. (2009). “The European Higher Education Area as an Instrument of Transparency?” pp. 121-135 in Heyneman, S.P. (ed.) Buying Your Way into Heaven: Education and Corruption in International Perspective Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Crosier, D. & Parveva, T. (2013). The Bologna Process: Its impact in Europe and beyond. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning. Paris, France. UNESCO.

Gabedava, M. (2013). Reforming the university admission system in Georgia. Transparency International Education Report, 155-159.

Kangro, A. (2005). The Bologna declaration and professional teacher training in Latvia. European Journal, 33, 49-57.

Lazerson, M. (2015). “Beyond the Bologna Process.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. April 6, 2015. http://chronicle.com/article/Beyond-the-Bologna-Process/229093?cid=megamenu

Preiherman, Y. (2015). “Why Belarus Needs the Bologna Process.” Belarus Digest. April 15, 2015. http://belarusdigest.com/story/why-belarus-needs-bologna-process-22353

Shaw, M. M. (2013). Impacts of globalisation on the academic profession: Emerging corruption risks in higher education. Transparency International Education Report, 194-201.

Teelken C, & Wihlborg, M. (2010). Reflecting on the Bologna Outcome Space: some pitfalls to avoid? Exploring Universities in Sweden and the Netherlands. European Educational Research Journal, 9(1), 105-116.

Voegtle, E. M., Knill, C., & Dobbins, M. (2010). To what extent does transnational communication drive cross-national policy convergence? The impact of the Bologna process on domestic higher education policies. Higher Education, 61, 77-94.